And I’m not impressed. Did they read the book? Thankfully, an article in Esquire says that the trailer does not reflect the film that well—the film is much closer to the novel in its pacing and dialogue. According to the article, the film, like Cormac McCarthy’s novel, offers no explanation for the post-apocalyptic setting. The trailer makes it look like another post-apocalyptic action story like, I Am Legend, rather than a beautiful story of the love between a father and his son in the midst of a harrowing future. I hope that the trailer truly does not give us a good picture of the film and that The Road merely goes down as another example of a bad trailer for a good movie. My hall of shame includes trailers for The Truman Show and Cast Away, which gave away significant plot points that the films try to keep hidden for, you know, dramatic purposes. The trailer for Master and Commander made a cerebral epic look like Gladiator at sea. Then there is the all-time king of a bad trailer for a good movie: The Princess Bride. “It’s as real as the feelings you feel”? A saxophone? Really?
What Kind of Sermons Are They Hearing?
A couple of friends have posted this story on Facebook. CNN reports:
The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week—54 percent—said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified—more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.
I find these results disheartening. Is it really true that the more people are supposedly exposed to the story of an incarnated and crucified God, the more likely they are to support torturing others? (The outliers seem to be the mainline denominations who do not support torture as much as their evangelical and Catholic family.) I cannot think of any real Christian justification for torture. Over on First Things—a journal no one would consider a bastion of liberal Christianity—Russell E. Saltzman roots his rejection of torture in a human being bearing God’s image:
I’ve been trying, like many Americas, to think this thing through. There is the altogether practical question: Did torture help us? Did it make America safer? Was the information really good, helpful, in thwarting terrorists? Did it actually in fact spoil pending plots? Frankly, the evidence is mixed.
But I really don’t care. Whether torture “worked” or not as an interrogative tactic is far from the main question. I’m a pastor. I think as a pastor, which is to say as a parish theologian. I don’t care if these guys shrieked like little girls on the playground and blubbered out plots for everything from the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre to knocking over Bagdad candy stores as juvenile delinquents. Torture is morally wrong. It is morally wrong, theologically speaking, because it is an attack upon the imago Dei, upon the image of God inherent to every human life.
One could just as easily rooted a rejection of torture in the words and actions of Jesus. “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” (Lk 6.27) How in the world can we worship a savior who endured the torture of lashings, a crown of thorns, nails in his hands, and crucifixion and think that it is morally acceptable to torture someone else? For those who have ever asked, “What would Jesus do?” can you really imagine that Jesus would strap a person to a board and subject him or her to “controlled drowning”? In mounting a Christian defense against torture, one could have used Paul and Peter as well: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.” (Rom 12.17) “Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing. It is for this that you were called—that you might inherit a blessing.” (1 Peter 3.9) I am outraged. I am outraged that my country would torture others and I am outraged that my sisters and brothers in the faith are more likely to support torture than the general public.
My Christian family’s support of torture is a terrible witness to the watching world.
“Nothing Else Matters,” Jaroslav Pelikan Quotations
Yesterday, I listened again to Krista Tippet’s interview with Jaroslav Pelikan on Speaking of Faith: The Need for Creeds. Later in the day, I did some reading of Pelikan on the internet. Two quotations of his have been ringing in my ears. The first I found on numerous pages:
If Christ is risen, nothing else matters. And if Christ is not risen—nothing else matters.
The second quotation comes from the Speaking of Faith interview. As Pelikan and Tippet discussed the Maasai Creed, he refers to the important feedback loop evangelism creates. As we reach out and express the Christian story in ways that make sense to different cultures, we find that we understand new aspects and see new angles of the story.
[I]t is not enough to Christianize Africa. We have to Africanize Christianity.
Unpacking the riches in these two quotations could take a lifetime.
In an excerpt from The Joyful Christian, C.S. Lewis aptly describes the necessity of both personal experience and doctrine in the Christian life. He shows the connection between the two. As someone who has encountered God in the study of Christian beliefs, I face the regular challenge to remember that knowing things about God is not the same thing as knowing God. To read about doctrine is not the same thing as encountering the real God. On the other hand, I appreciate Lewis’ description of doctrine as the amalgamation of lots of peoples’ real encounters with God. Anyway, here is Lewis:
In a way I quite understand why some people are put off by Theology. I remember once when I had been giving a talk to the R.A.F., an old, hard-bitten officer got up and said, “I’ve no use for all that stuff. But, mind you, I’m a religious man too. I know there’s a God. I’ve felt him: out alone in the desert at night: the tremendous mystery. And that’s just why I don’t believe all your neat little dogmas and formulas about him. To anyone who’s met the real thing they all seem so petty and pedantic and unreal!”
Now in a sense I quite agreed with that man. I think he had probably a real experience of God in the desert. And when he turned from that experience to the Christian creeds, I think he really was turning from something real, to something less real. In the same way, if a man has once looked at the Atlantic from the beach, and then goes and looks at a map of the Atlantic, he also will be turning from real waves to a bit of colored paper. But here comes the point. The map is admittedly only colored paper, but there are two things you have to remember about it. In the first place, it is based on what hundreds and thousands of people have found out by sailing the real Atlantic. In that way it has behind it masses of experience just as real as the one you could have from the beach; only, while yours would be a single isolated glimpse, the map fits all those different experiences together. In the second place, if you want to go anywhere, the map is absolutely necessary. As long as you are content with walks on the beach, your own glimpses are far more fun than looking at a map. But the map is going to be more use than walks on the beach if you want to get to America.
Now Theology is like the map. Merely learning and thinking about the Christian doctrines, if you stop there, is less real and less exciting than the sort of thing my friend got in the desert. Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But the map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God—experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you or I are likely to get on our own way are very elementary and very confused. And secondly, if you want to get any further, you must use the map. You see, what happened to that man in the desert may have been real, and was certainly exciting, but nothing comes of it. It leads nowhere. There is nothing to do about it. In fact, that is just why a vague religion—all about feeling God in nature, and so on—is so attractive. It is all thrills and no work; like watching the waves from the beach. But you will not get to Newfoundland by studying the Atlantic that way, and you will not get eternal life simply feeling the presence of God in flowers or music. Neither will you get anywhere by looking at maps without going to sea. Nor will you be very safe if you go to sea without a map.
On Sunday night, my 94 year old grandmother went to the hospital. Her health was in serious decline the past few months. On Monday night, March 16, she died. Our family is deeply sad, but also at peace. Grandma said she has been ready to go for a few years. I am grateful for her life and the love she gave her family and friends. This is the third death in our immediate family since 2005 and that feels like a lot.
Did people watch Jon Stewart eviscerate Jim Cramer on The Daily Show? I enjoyed his reporting and mocking of the spat all week, but his interview with Cramer displayed the serious intelligence behind The Daily Show. Forget what Keith Olbermann may say about himself—Stewart is our best version of Edward R. Murrow, except in a jester’s costume. Stewart’s interview with Cramer is decidedly, intentionally, and appropriately unfunny. I’m curious to see what happens to Cramer’s career after this interview. Many people think that Stewart’s serious lambasting of Crossfire led to that show’s demise.
My Brother-In-Law, the Composer
Last night, NBC aired the series debut of The Chopping Block, a new reality elimination show that pits teams wannabe restaurateurs against each other. At the end of the season, the winners make off with $250,000 to start their own restaurant. British chef and the man who supposedly made Gordon Ramsay cry, Marco Pierre White hosts, offers criticisms and aphorisms, and ultimately casts off the losers. The reason I’m sharing this is that my brother-in-law, Todd, helped write and perform the majority of the music for the series. We went to his house to watch the premiere last night. I’m so excited to see him get his work out to a national audience. It was great to celebrate with him. He did a great job.
So yes, this is a shameless plug to tune in next week, Wednesday night at 8pm. You can watch the premiere at Hulu.
President Obama’s recently signed an order lifting the ban on government money funding embryonic stem cell research. USA Today reported,
The audience burst into applause at several points when Obama implicitly rebuked former president George W. Bush for what opponents have characterized as making decisions based on ideology rather than sound science.
I won’t comment on the order signed by Obama. I want to use this matter as an illustration of a fallacy in our thinking. Those who have criticized President Bush for “making decisions based on ideology rather than sound science” are not without an ideology themselves. Their beliefs of what constitutes “sound science” and how science should shape how the government funds research follow an ideology. Everyone holds ideologies, especially when it comes to areas of morality and politics. Ideology is a neutral term. An ideology comprises a set of beliefs, values, and doctrines that guide a person or group and I can think of no one who is void of ideology. I am fond of saying everyone has a theology because everyone has some beliefs about divinity. The person who does not believe in a divine being, or the person who says there is no way we can truly know if there is a divine being, hold as much a theological position as the Christian who recites the Nicene Creed. Ideology works the same way. The most pragmatic utilitarian position that seeks to do the least amount of harm for the least amount of people adheres to an ideology. To criticize someone for letting ideology guide their decision-making is a rather weak argument. The question is not will we let ideology shape our public policy, but what ideologies do we let shape our public policies?
We may disagree vehemently with another person’s ideology, but it gets us nowhere to criticize the person for being ideological. Each ideology has non-negotiable points and we can debate whether those non-negotiables do more harm than good. Even a total laissez-faire attitude comes from an ideology with strong non-negotiables. The amount of non-negotiables in an ideology, the positions of an ideology, how stridently that ideology requires adherence, all these matters are open to critique. So is the way in which a person chooses to conform to the ideology. In other words, to criticize someone or some position for being “ideological” does not get to the heart of the matter because there is no such thing as a non-ideological person or a non-ideological position. When people criticize others for being ideological, they are really criticizing the ideology’s non-negotiables for being wrong, or they are criticizing others for being unwilling to listen to different information. We should not strive for an ideology-free society—as if there ever could be one—but a society that values and adheres to good ideologies.
Big Government: It Needs to Be Said
Steven Thomma, in a March 5, 2009 article for McClatchy Newspapers, writes a needed story in the midst of all debate regarding government spending: “It only looks different: Both parties love big government.”
Republicans say they’re outraged that Obama would “borrow and spend” his way to a new behemoth government. But they borrowed and spent their way through the ‘80s and the current decade. And they love big government — when it’s at the Pentagon.
Democrats from Obama on down insist that they don’t like big government, that they’re just forced into a temporary spending spree by the recession. But Democrats love big government as well, when it’s for social programs such as universal health care.
“The basic difference between Democrats and Republicans in recent decades is which aspect of government spending they prefer,” said Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn. “With the Republicans, it’s defense. With the Democrats, it’s education, environment, health care etc. That’s been the major difference between the two parties going back to Reagan.”
The numbers tell the tale.
In his eight years, Republican Ronald Reagan increased government spending by 69 percent, led by a 92 percent increase in defense spending as he built up the military to confront the Soviet Union. (These numbers aren’t adjusted for inflation.)
With the economy growing by the time he left office in 1989, the size of the government as a share of total economic production had shrunk slightly, from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent.
Democrat Bill Clinton increased government spending by 32 percent from 1993 to 2001, brought down largely by the rapid slowdown in defense spending after the Cold War ended. Defense spending grew by just 4 percent during the Clinton years.
The combination of restrained growth in government and a booming economy meant that government’s size as a percentage of the economy dropped from 21.4 percent to 18.5 percent in the Clinton years.
George W. Bush boosted government spending by 68 percent in his eight-year presidency, spearheaded by a 126 percent increase for defense as he waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush’s spending totals don’t include the $700 billion bank bailout added last fall to his final fiscal year, or the $787 billion stimulus package added early this year.
By the time he left office, Bush’s government had grown as a share of the economy from 18.5 percent to 22 percent.
While he relies on optimistic assumptions about the economy, Obama forecasts that he’ll raise spending this year and next, then ratchet it back until it again represents 22 percent of the economy at the end of his first term.
